CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doe v. Briley

This case involves a 1974 consent decree limiting public access to arrest records of individuals not convicted of charges, entered into by John Doe (plaintiff class representative), Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, and the State of Tennessee. The plaintiff filed a motion to assure compliance, alleging the defendants violated the decree by disseminating arrest records, including posting "johns" on the internet. Defendants Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI) and Metro, along with intervenors The Tennessean and NewsChannel 5, moved to dissolve the decree. The court found that the constitutional right underpinning the 1974 decree, related to reputation and due process, has eroded due to subsequent Supreme Court decisions like Paul v. Davis. Additionally, Tennessee statutory laws (T.C.A. § 10-7-503 and § 38-6-120) now mandate public access to arrest records. Consequently, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for compliance, granted the defendants' and intervenors' motions to dissolve the 1974 consent decree, and dismissed the case, noting that the 1973 consent decree, which addresses employment-related record use, remains in effect.

Consent DecreeRule 60(b) MotionDue Process ClauseFourteenth AmendmentRight of PrivacyArrest RecordsPublic Records ActConstitutional LawJudicial ReviewModification of Injunction
References
57
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

John B. Ex Rel. L.A. v. Goetz

This memorandum addresses the Defendants' motion to vacate a Consent Decree concerning the provision of medical services to over 500,000 Medicaid-eligible children in Tennessee. The Plaintiffs, John B. and other minors, had previously filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the state failed to provide Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT) services under the Medicaid Act. Defendants sought to vacate or modify the Consent Decree, citing new legal developments from Westside Mothers II and Brown v. Tennessee Dept. of Finance & Admin. The Court acknowledges these cases but ultimately denies the Defendants' motion to vacate and their alternate argument for modification, finding that the Consent Decree's provisions for outreach services and mandated medical assistance remain enforceable under federal law. The memorandum details the state's historical non-compliance and the ongoing necessity of the decree to ensure children receive essential healthcare.

Medicaid ActEPSDT servicesChildren's healthcareConsent DecreeState waiver programFederal fundingOutreach servicesMedical assistanceCompliance issuesManaged Care Organizations
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Environmental Abatement, Inc. v. Astrum R.E. Corp.

This case addresses whether a settlement judge can enter a consent decree when a party withdraws its consent to an oral agreement reached during a judicial settlement conference. Mahan Roofing and Sheet Metal Company, Inc. (Mahan) appealed after a settlement judge entered a compromise and settlement order despite Mahan's explicit withdrawal of consent. The appellate court found that the oral agreement was not made 'on the record' or 'in open court,' thus allowing Mahan to withdraw its assent. Furthermore, the court determined that the settlement judge, acting as a dispute resolution neutral under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 31, lacked the authority to enter a dispositive order. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, vacated the Order of Compromise and Settlement, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Consent DecreeOral AgreementSettlement ConferenceWithdrawal of ConsentJudicial AuthorityAppellate ReviewContract LawCivil ProcedureLocal RulesMediation
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Murillo v. Texas a & M University System

Plaintiff Berene Murillo filed a class action lawsuit against the Texas A & M University System and Dr. Edward A. Hiler, alleging widespread misclassification of agricultural workers as independent contractors. This misclassification led to various violations including the Fair Labor Standards Act, Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, Federal Insurance Contribution Act, Civil Rights Act, and Texas Revised Civil Statutes. Specifically, the suit claimed failures to pay minimum wage, social security excise taxes, and unemployment benefits. Following extensive negotiations, the parties reached a settlement, which the Court reviewed and approved as fair and adequate. The resulting Agreed Class Action Consent Decree mandates defendants to pay damages to class members, correct social security accounts, and implement new employment practices to ensure compliance with federal labor laws, thereby preventing future misclassification of workers.

Class ActionFair Labor Standards ActAgricultural WorkersIndependent ContractorsWage and HourSocial Security TaxesUnemployment BenefitsConsent DecreeSettlement AgreementEmployee Misclassification
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. District Council of New York City

This civil RICO action involves a motion by the government to hold the District Council of New York City and Vicinity of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America and its president, Peter Thomassen, in contempt of a 1994 consent decree. The central issue is whether collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) enacted in 2001, which modified job referral rules (specifically the "50/50 Rule" and the "Request System"), violated the consent decree by not providing prior notice to the government. The government argued that these changes diluted fair job assignments. The District Council contended that the consent decree's notice requirements did not extend to CBAs and that the changes were made to enhance union contractors' competitiveness. The court denied the government's motion, concluding that while the consent decree's notice provision was broad, it explicitly excluded CBAs from review by court officers, rendering the decree's applicability to future CBAs at best ambiguous and thus not a basis for a contempt finding.

RICO ActionLabor OrganizationConsent DecreeContempt MotionCollective Bargaining AgreementsJob Referral Rules50/50 RuleRequest SystemUnion GovernanceOrganized Crime
References
6
Case No. L-83-44-CA
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 1986

Ibarra v. Texas Employment Commission

This case originated in 1983 when Fidel B. Ibarra, Jr. and Mario Esparza sued the Texas Employment Commission (TEC) for denying unemployment benefits to aliens without INS work authorization. The lawsuit was certified as a class action representing all aliens denied benefits for this reason. A partial consent decree was established in 1985, addressing procedural issues, and a proposed final consent decree defining "permanently residing in the United States under color of law" was preliminarily approved in April 1986. The TEC subsequently moved to invalidate the final decree, citing a change in federal policy and requesting the re-joinder of federal agencies as defendants. Chief Judge Justice denied TEC's motions, affirmed the Magistrate's recommendation for approval, and ultimately approved the consent decree, deeming it fair, adequate, reasonable, and legally sound. The decree specifies various categories of eligible aliens and outlines procedures for notice and redetermination of claims.

Unemployment BenefitsAlien EligibilityClass ActionConsent DecreeImmigration and Naturalization ServiceTexas Employment CommissionFederal FundingWork AuthorizationPermanent Residence Under Color of LawSettlement Agreement
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

John B. v. Emkes

This Memorandum Opinion addresses a class-action challenge against Tennessee officials regarding the TennCare managed care program's compliance with early and periodic screening, diagnosis and treatment (EPSDT) services for children. The lawsuit, initiated in 1998, operated under a Consent Decree. The State filed a motion to vacate the Decree, arguing substantial compliance. After an evidentiary hearing and review of extensive evidence, the Court found that the State has achieved substantial compliance with the Consent Decree's requirements concerning outreach, screening, diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring of EPSDT services. Consequently, the Court granted the State's motion to vacate the Consent Decree, dissolved all injunctive relief, and dismissed the case, while retaining jurisdiction for fee applications and contempt citations.

TennCareMedicaid ActEPSDT ProgramConsent Decree VacatedSubstantial ComplianceChild HealthcareManaged Care OrganizationsMedical ScreeningDiagnosis and TreatmentOutreach Efforts
References
4
Case No. Docket No. 406
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2005

Frew v. Hawkins

This civil action, initiated in 1993, addresses the alleged failure of the State of Texas to implement a Medicaid program, specifically the Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) program, for indigent children. A Consent Decree was approved in 1996 to ensure compliance, with the court retaining jurisdiction. Defendants subsequently filed a Rule 60(b) motion in November 2004, seeking either complete dissolution of the Consent Decree or its partial dissolution for urban areas, citing compliance with federal law and changed circumstances. Following a June 2005 hearing, the Court evaluated evidence concerning medical checkups, dental services, outreach efforts, and case management. The Court concluded that Defendants failed to demonstrate significant changed factual circumstances, that the proposed relief was suitably tailored, or that reasonable efforts were made to comply with the decree's obligations. Consequently, Defendants' Rule 60(b) Motion for Relief From Judgment was DENIED, affirming the continued prospective application of the Consent Decree.

Medicaid Program EnforcementEPSDT ServicesConsent Decree ModificationRule 60(b) MotionHealth Care AccessIndigent Children's HealthManaged Care PerformanceState Compliance IssuesOutreach EffectivenessDental Care Access
References
27
Case No. 13-01-00628-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2002

Bryan D. Bachus v. Sharla D. Bachus

This case concerns an appeal from a divorce decree based on a settlement agreement between Bryan D. Bachus (Appellant) and Sharla D. Bachus (Appellee). Appellant contested the decree's validity and the denial of his motion for new trial, citing newly discovered evidence of appellee's alleged drug abuse, withdrawal of consent to the agreement, lack of co-counsel's authority, and discrepancies between the settlement terms and the final decree. The Court of Appeals largely affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion for new trial, ruling that the trial court rendered judgment on the settlement agreement prior to the attempted revocation of consent. However, the appellate court found that the divorce decree's provisions for child possession and visitation deviated from the parties' settlement agreement. Consequently, the court reversed that specific portion of the decree and remanded the case with instructions for the trial court to align the possession order with the original settlement agreement, while affirming all other aspects of the divorce decree.

DivorceChild CustodySettlement AgreementMotion for New TrialNewly Discovered EvidenceConsent JudgmentAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionFamily LawChild Support
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 1997

United States v. Dist. Council of New York City

Two groups of petitioners, the "Macagnone Petitioners" and "Local Petitioners," sought to intervene in an ongoing civil RICO action involving the District Council of New York City and Vicinity of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. Their aim was to object to a proposed Restructuring Plan, arguing it violated a previously established Consent Decree, but their intervention was opposed by the government, the Investigations and Review Officer (IRO), and the District Council itself. Senior District Judge Haight denied both the motions to intervene and for class certification, and vacated a stay on the Restructuring Plan's implementation. The Court determined that the Consent Decree did not mandate prior judicial approval for District Council-initiated changes, especially given the lack of objections from the government or IRO. Additionally, the petitioners failed to demonstrate that the Restructuring Plan conflicted with the Consent Decree's primary objective of eliminating organized crime influence, rather than overseeing internal union governance.

InterventionClass ActionRICOConsent DecreeLabor LawUnion RestructuringJudicial ReviewRule 24Rule 23Democratic Process
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 678 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational